The manuscript responds to the critique of Nitsche and Kasting concerning our published correlation for deca-1,9-diene/water partition coefficients. Several statements made in the critique are refuted, and shown to be misrepresentations of ideas contained in our earlier paper.In a recent commentary published in this Journal, Nitsche and Kasting 1 provided a highly biased critique of Abraham and Acree's correlation 2 for deca-1,9-diene/water partition coefficients. Unfortunately many of the items discussed in the critique were a misrepresentation of ideas contained in the Abraham and Acree paper. We will not go through every one of the misrepresentations, but will focus on a select few.First, in the abstract Nitsche and Kasting state "Solvation parameters used as independent variables should represent fundamental molecular properties, yet they are assigned revised values apparently based partly on the very data being fitted." Nowhere in our paper do we state that the experimental deca-1,9-diene/water partition coefficients were used in the computation of solute descriptors. It is fundamentally impossible to use experimental deca-1,9-diene/water partition coefficients to calculate solute descriptors in the absence of an Abraham model for deca-1,9-diene/water partition coefficients, as log P(10diene), and/or gas-to-deca-1,9-diene, log K(10diene), partition coefficient correlations. We did have the required linear free energy relationships (LFERs) by the end of our analysis, but not at the start when the solute descriptors were being determined. The same is true for the 1-hexadecene database and correlations. ForNitsche and Kasting to imply otherwise, is a misrepresentation of what was stated in our manuscript.